Most players at any level will put away floaters at the net. Some people at even fairly high levels do struggle with it. The definition of "put away" changes as the level increases too - it is much easier to smack a ball passed a 3.0 than it is to get it passed a 4.5.

Click to expand...

Right, but the skill level of a 3.0 mirrors the put-away-ability of a 3.0. Everything scales. You cant imagine a 3.0 "put-away" being run down by a 4.5 or a 4.5 "smacking a ball" past a 3.0. You have to assume that everything is reasonably scaled.

You also have to consider that a 3.0 1 ft. off the net vs. a 4.0 at the baseline is a favorable circumstance for a 3.0. As long as the 3.0 isnt drinking beer instead of water, even a 3.0 can hit a winner off a 4.0 groundstroke when the 3.0 is that close to the net and the 4.0 is that far back.

I think what many people are reacting to may be the generalizations. Each individual has different strengths and weaknesses. You can't assume that a particular person at a given level has a particular shot. One of the things I love about doubles is figuring out how to use the stengths on my side of the net while not letting our opponents take advantage of our weaknesses - which may include a weak serve, awful backhand, or inconsistent volleys.

Click to expand...

There is a certain minimum standard of play for every NTRP level. For example: you are not going to ever see a 5.0 who has no backhand. The backhand may not be his best shot, but you are not going to ever be a 5.0 if you cant survive a simple backhand to backhand exchange.

4.5 is the level at which you can no longer cheese your way to victory. Moonballing for 10 years straight in 3.5 can help you be bumped to 4.0. You are not going to have a great time in 4.0 doing that and you're certainly not going to get to 4.5 no matter how hard or long you try.

I'm not claiming that every 4.5 should have a serve and volley game. I'm claiming that no 4.5 on the planet is going to struggle with easy floaters at the net and the statement "I play with 4.5's who can hit volleys to save their life" is just not realistic.

You can get away with a lot of cheese from 3.0-4.0 but thats where it ends.

You can get away with a lot of cheese from 3.0-4.0 but thats where it ends.

Click to expand...

Says the guy who has never played 4.0 tennis let alone 4.5.

And my statement was "I play with 4.5 players who can't PUT AWAY volleys to save their life". That is a far different statement. Talk to people who play on a 4.5 team and they will tell you the same thing.

Again- all it takes to be a 4.5 player is to be able to consistently beat 4.0 players. 4.0 players have enough holes in their game that people can do so even if they have terrible volleys or even if they have lousy backhands. Beating 4.0 players isn't nearly as complicated as you seem to think it is.

I don't claim to be a "top" 4.5, but I win more than I lose in USTA Adult league play. In league I play about 2/3 singles (winning record) and 1/3 dubs (even record).

I most certainly do not have every shot in tennis. I will sometimes flub what should be easy putaways, both at the net and from midcourt.

For the record, I played some mid-level HS tennis but was not nearly good enough to play college tennis at my school. I then stopped playing for about 15 years. So I consider myself just a good rec player.

4.5's are good but still very fallible.

Click to expand...

Everyone makes errors sometimes. In the context of this discussion we're talking about easy floaters at the net, in this case, very close to the net, closer than normal.

I'm assuming if you stood 2 or 3 ft. from the net and I hit balls at you arnt going to miss very often. We're talking about spots claim of "I know 4.5's who cant put away volleys to save their lives" when I said putting away floaters at the net should be easy for 3.5...

Of course there will be balls that you cant put away. Of course there will be times you miss an easy shot. A 4.5 who struggles with putting away floaters at the net? I'm still calling BS. A floater at the net? No way.

Based on your prior posts, we are talking about "erratic" power. Take your first serve, the one that goes 120 mph IIRC. You admit it is Not Ready For Prime Time. That's "erratic power." And it is worthless.

Click to expand...

I have the ability to serve well over 100. One day that serve will work. At that point in time you will still be clinging to your 50 mph super slice serve. Right now, my second serve is better than your first serve, by a huge margin. That "erratic power" is applied to my second serve in a completely different way. You just dont understand.

And the idea that a top 3.0 will never make a lob error is a joke also. "Never"? Really?

Click to expand...

A high level 3.0 combo player who is involved in a moonball exchange will not make very many errors and these rallies can and do continue on for extended periods of time while these exchanges do not happen in higher levels of tennis. The example I gave is a 4.5 player who is trying to hit a topspin lob winner and makes an error due to the quality of shot needed.

Yes, of course higher-level players have to hit better quality shots than lower-level players, on account of how the opponents are stronger so it takes better tennis to beat them. This is kind of obvious. Does it prove anything beyond the obvious?

Click to expand...

I find myself explaining the obvious to you and your buddy Spot all the time.

And my statement was "I play with 4.5 players who can't PUT AWAY volleys to save their life". That is a far different statement. Talk to people who play on a 4.5 team and they will tell you the same thing.

Again- all it takes to be a 4.5 player is to be able to consistently beat 4.0 players. 4.0 players have enough holes in their game that people can do so even if they have terrible volleys or even if they have lousy backhands.Beating 4.0 players isn't nearly as complicated as you seem to think it is.

Click to expand...

Apparently not when its on the internet.

According to Cindy's tennislink, her record at 4.0 is terrible. I wish I knew which team mate of hers you are so I could look at your record too. You should go tell her your secret strategies for winning since its "not at all complicated to win at 4.0".

Just to let you know, the team we barely beat last week has a record of 1W-4L. This team is put up a "3.5" girl who played college in 2005 and 9.0 in 2009 and is definitely took care of herself since then and came down back to 3.5. Skill levels in this match were probably closer to 8.0 even though this is a 7.0 match. If the team we barely beat is a low range team who is putting up former college players in 7.0 I must be totally off over peoples skill levels. Our team is 3W-1L and we're pretty much out of contention at this point.

NTRPolice- just out of curiosity, how big was the school where the 3.5 girl played in college? We have been fooled several times by adding recently graduated girls who "played in college" but didn't take into account they were from small schools. They just got torched and if they had taken a couple years off should certainly have signed up for 3.5. Not trying to disparage the girl you played- I just find it interesting the range in ability that exists even for girls who played in college.

Anyway-NTRPolice is just spouting a common refrain of a 3.0 player talking about what 4.5 players should be able to do even though he hasn't played 4.0 let alone 4.5 tennis. He thinks that when I said I play with 4.5 guys who can't put the ball away to save their lives that it is blasphemy. Though in reality I'd wager that on every 4.5 team that there are guys who no one wants to play doubles with because they can't put volleys away to save their lives. Or the guys who only play singles because the can't put volleys away to save their lives. Seriously- go talk to some 4.5 players.

And it all started because he said that all 3.5 and all but the worst 3.0 players will immediately put away any volley that is popped up. This is simply a laughable statement to anyone who has played league tennis for any length of time.

I have the ability to serve well over 100. One day that serve will work.

Click to expand...

Do you mean you can sometimes serve correctly well over 100 right now?

That is how I measure talent, too. To me, someone who displays potential is the one I want to play against. Even if his 120 mph serve shows up rarely, I want to be there to receive it. Consistency is good, but not as exciting as the possibility of something great out there.

I explained to you in the other thread that my 2012 win rate as a newly-bumped 4.0 player is about 45%, including many matches played at Doubles One and no default wins.

Why are you just typing the first thing that pops into your head like that? It's annoying. I mean, come on. When you are winning 45% of your matches at 4.0, maybe you can talk.

And yes, I will concede that you are a younger man and I am an older woman, so I suspect your serve is faster than mine. I am guessing you can also do more pushups on your toes and can whip me in both arm wrestling and thumb wrestling.

FWIW, there are 4.0 women on my team who I would not trust to put a way a floater volley. They just do not have good technique or footwork. In the cases I am thinking of, they are singles players. They tend to take huge backswings and mis-time their volleys and spray them long or wide. Or they don't put anything on it, so it hits the court and sits up. Or they do that mysterious thing where they are right on top of the net yet dump the ball into the six-inch space between the net and their abdomen.

There are pros who are pretty poor volleyers compared to other pros. Why wouldn't this be true at the league level?

There are varying degrees of "putaways", "winners", and "errors" as you move up levels. As an athletic 4.5, I have good foot speed, and after many years of playing experience, I have good anticipation skills, so it is difficult even for 4.5s to hit winners against me, even if they hit it to the opposite corner or if they drill it right at me. But those "winners" and "putaways" that 3.5s hit? They are not winners against me, or most other 4.5s. We'll anticipate it, we'll track it down.

And errors happen too, just on maybe the 10th or 15th shot of the (singles) point, not the 2nd or 3rd. And they are usually forced in some way. One of my initial struggles at the 4.5 level was having the fitness to hit the shots I want. I have always been in good shape, but it is a different kind of shape you need to excel in singles, you need to be able to still hit winners while winded. Can you hit that running backhand winner 12 shots into a point? If not, that still an error, albeit a different kind of error than a random shanked 3.5 forehand into the fence.

But you can definitely rise to any level even if you have holes in your game, as long as you can still win and compensate for those holes. Younger people struggle with volleys. Older people struggle to hit groundstrokes on the run. They can still win, but those are still holes in their game.

3.0s know they stink because they have ample opportunity to see 3.5s in action.

3.5s stink because they have figured out all kinds of jacked up ways to compensate for the ways they stink, so it looks jacked up.

4.0s, though. 4.0 women are the Queens of the Court. They can beat all of their friends who are still 3.5 and below. They have few opportunities to see 4.5 and 5.0 women because there are relatively few 4.5/5.0 women playing league. So no one disabuses them of the notion that they don't stink.

3.0s know they stink because they have ample opportunity to see 3.5s in action.

3.5s stink because they have figured out all kinds of jacked up ways to compensate for the ways they stink, so it looks jacked up.

4.0s, though. 4.0 women are the Queens of the Court. They can beat all of their friends who are still 3.5 and below. They have few opportunities to see 4.5 and 5.0 women because there are relatively few 4.5/5.0 women playing league. So no one disabuses them of the notion that they don't stink.

4.0s are the worst. I say that as a 4.0.

Click to expand...

Lmao. This is too funny. And too true. Unfortunately, I'm a 4.0 that gets to see a lot of 4.5s and a fair number of 5.0s so I know that I stink to high heaven - you know - beyond jacked up 3.5 stink. lol

By never gunned, wild tt statements? You'll be out on the court for quite some time awaiting that 3.0, 120 mph out wide. Stick around here and you can read about it every day.

Click to expand...

Today was a great day. One of the top 2 juniors in the club was hitting serves and I received them so that he didn't have to pick up the balls. What an experience! Consistent hard first serves and ridiculously spinning and kicking second serves. Never ever faced an adult till the 4.5 level who was anywhere close to him. I mean, if I had my racket face slightly at the wrong angle, it hurt. The movement through the air was so much it caused major forehand-backhand confusion. The into-the-body ones created subconscious panic. After half an hour, I partially got used to them.

After that, playing doubles with the usual suspects just seemed unimaginably sad and I left!

Do you mean you can sometimes serve correctly well over 100 right now?

That is how I measure talent, too. To me, someone who displays potential is the one I want to play against. Even if his 120 mph serve shows up rarely, I want to be there to receive it. Consistency is good, but not as exciting as the possibility of something great out there.

Click to expand...

I can definitely make legitimate serves well over 100 mph right now and its not something that I learned recently. The problem is the serve is too inconsistent to be used and is a huge risk. I wont even try to use it in matches unless its clear it worth the risk.

I explained to you in the other thread that my 2012 win rate as a newly-bumped 4.0 player is about 45%, including many matches played at Doubles One and no default wins.

Why are you just typing the first thing that pops into your head like that? It's annoying. I mean, come on. When you are winning 45% of your matches at 4.0, maybe you can talk.

And yes, I will concede that you are a younger man and I am an older woman, so I suspect your serve is faster than mine. I am guessing you can also do more pushups on your toes and can whip me in both arm wrestling and thumb wrestling.

Click to expand...

I know you said that. I dont see that on your tennislink, however. According to your tennislink, in 2012, you have 1 "win" due to a default. All of the rest of your matches are losses...

When I look back a few years, you're only winning as a "3.5".

I am not seeing you playing "4.0" and winning.

I just assume then, you're talking about "wins" outside of USTA. If you think those count, fine. Your record according to tennislink as a 4.0 is mostly losses. lol.

3.5 tennis is terrible tennis. Just awful. No offense to my fellow 3.5s.

Click to expand...

And what NTRP are you? lol.

A good 3.5 is already better than average in ability. Look at the 3.5 sectional quality players. They're all destined to be 4.0's or beyond. They're not winning in doubles (especially) by being "terrible at tennis".

One of the top 2 juniors in the club was hitting serves and I received them so that he didn't have to pick up the balls. What an experience! Consistent hard first serves and ridiculously spinning and kicking second serves. Never ever faced an adult till the 4.5 level who was anywhere close to him. I mean, if I had my racket face slightly at the wrong angle, it hurt. The movement through the air was so much it caused major forehand-backhand confusion. The into-the-body ones created subconscious panic.

Click to expand...

Yep. You have the blink of an eye to decide. If you mishit it, it can actually "disarm" you.

FWIW: If that kid decides to play adult league, its very possible you can meet them in 4.5. There are 4.0 "freshly graduated" "ranked" 19 year old kids here who are playing their first year in USTA. As I mentioned before, there was a 3.5 girl who played college in 2005 and 9.0 in 2009.

1) The OP was talking about "low"-ish level doubles where one person isnt that good at the net. I then stated that the bad net person should be as close to the net as possible and its absurd to think that bad net person should be able to freely roam inside the service box.

2) Being that close to the net reduces errors and increases chance of winners. In a doubles match where person isnt that good at volleys should be supplemented with a good base liner that doesnt move up except for short balls. This is a winning strategy proven time and time again especially in 6.0-7.0

3) No one is talking about 5.0 singles players hitting put away vollyes from their feet off an 80 mph serve return. That is just where Cindy and Spot took this conversation after I laughed at their claim of "knowing 4.5's who cant put away floaters at the net".

4) My "serve claim" has apparently evolved in many phases...

-First, people claimed that no 3.0 can serve 100 mph.

-After showing potential to do so now all of a sudden that ball has to go in all the time.

-I did say that I wouldnt doubt that I could hit 110 on a good swing. But I also said that its not common and im more worried about building a quality second serve 70-80 mph with high spin and accuracy as its more useful to have than a 120 mph 10% serve and a 50 mph 90% tap over which is what most people do.

-There was a point where people were claiming that I have no idea what that type of serve looks like and that my method of measuring the speeds using FPS were so "off" that I would measure Nadals serve at 180 mph. After proving that spot has no idea what it's doing when it tries to use reproduce that method we're now just upping the ante to...

-I cant serve 120 mph out wide 70% of the time.

You guys forget how this started. "A 3.0 cant serve 100 mph".

If you guys are so desperate to be right then why not just say that I cant serve 200 mph with 10,000 RPM's 101% of the time. There is going to be a point where I just cant do something. You know that. I know that.

And my statement was "I play with 4.5 players who can't PUT AWAY volleys to save their life". That is a far different statement. Talk to people who play on a 4.5 team and they will tell you the same thing.

Again- all it takes to be a 4.5 player is to be able to consistently beat 4.0 players. 4.0 players have enough holes in their game that people can do so even if they have terrible volleys or even if they have lousy backhands. Beating 4.0 players isn't nearly as complicated as you seem to think it is.

Click to expand...

I'm a 4.5C. If I pop a ball up in a 4.5 match, I'm pretty sure someone is going to put it away against me (and vice versa).

I actually think that is the difference between 4.0-4.5. Short balls to a 4.5 are going to be played more accurately and aggressively than at 4.0. Depth with spin is very important.

1) The OP was talking about "low"-ish level doubles where one person isnt that good at the net. I then stated that the bad net person should be as close to the net as possible and its absurd to think that bad net person should be able to freely roam inside the service box.

2) Being that close to the net reduces errors and increases chance of winners. In a doubles match where person isnt that good at volleys should be supplemented with a good base liner that doesnt move up except for short balls. This is a winning strategy proven time and time again especially in 6.0-7.0

3) No one is talking about 5.0 singles players hitting put away vollyes from their feet off an 80 mph serve return. That is just where Cindy and Spot took this conversation after I laughed at their claim of "knowing 4.5's who cant put away floaters at the net".

4) My "serve claim" has apparently evolved in many phases...

-First, people claimed that no 3.0 can serve 100 mph.

-After showing potential to do so now all of a sudden that ball has to go in all the time.

-I did say that I wouldnt doubt that I could hit 110 on a good swing. But I also said that its not common and im more worried about building a quality second serve 70-80 mph with high spin and accuracy as its more useful to have than a 120 mph 10% serve and a 50 mph 90% tap over which is what most people do.

-There was a point where people were claiming that I have no idea what that type of serve looks like and that my method of measuring the speeds using FPS were so "off" that I would measure Nadals serve at 180 mph. After proving that spot has no idea what it's doing when it tries to use reproduce that method we're now just upping the ante to...

-I cant serve 120 mph out wide 70% of the time.

You guys forget how this started. "A 3.0 cant serve 100 mph".

If you guys are so desperate to be right then why not just say that I cant serve 200 mph with 10,000 RPM's 101% of the time. There is going to be a point where I just cant do something. You know that. I know that.

Dude, I've seen your videos. You don't have the strokes of a 3.0. If you perform at a 3.0/3.5 level with stroke ability like you have, there is something wrong with your tactics/mental game.

Click to expand...

While I do appreciate the compliment it is somewhat irrelevant. I'm trying to go back to the "3.0's cant serve 100 mph" which people were so hastily to agree with. I'm an NTRP 3.0 computer rated player, as i've explained before the account is legit. I do agree with you, my abilities are top tier 3.5 at least, or mid range 4.0 at this point. I have only lost twice in 7.0 mixed doubles playing with a 4.0 girl as a 3.0 guy.

After I made my Youtube channel available to the people of TT, they had to start playing other angles because its clear from the video that I have the potential to actually prove them wrong.

Then it was...

-I dont know what 100 mph looks like.
So I offered FPS speed measuring of a small clip of my serves. Wasnt good enough.

Then it was...

-That power is useless unless it goes in most of the time.
Which I agreed to, but already explained im building a solid second serve before I work on the hard flat one.

Then it was...

-110 outwide because I made a comment about how I dont doubt that on a good strike it can be 110.
They forgot all about the "stipulations"

I know you said that. I dont see that on your tennislink, however. According to your tennislink, in 2012, you have 1 "win" due to a default. All of the rest of your matches are losses...

When I look back a few years, you're only winning as a "3.5".

I am not seeing you playing "4.0" and winning.

I just assume then, you're talking about "wins" outside of USTA. If you think those count, fine. Your record according to tennislink as a 4.0 is mostly losses. lol.

Click to expand...

I think it is pretty obvious that you aren't looking at CS' record. I can confirm her 45% winning percentage at 4.0 and her record doesn't show any defaults.

BTW, I can say that 3.5 tennis is terrible tennis because I am one, a fact that was obvious when I said "...my fellow 3.5s" in my post. And it is terrible tennis. Tons of unforced errors, puffballs and bad strategy.

While I do appreciate the compliment it is somewhat irrelevant. I'm trying to go back to the "3.0's cant serve 100 mph" which people were so hastily to agree with. I'm an NTRP 3.0 computer rated player, as i've explained before the account is legit. I do agree with you, my abilities are top tier 3.5 at least, or mid range 4.0 at this point. I have only lost twice in 7.0 mixed doubles playing with a 4.0 girl as a 3.0 guy.

After I made my Youtube channel available to the people of TT, they had to start playing other angles because its clear from the video that I have the potential to actually prove them wrong.

Then it was...

-I dont know what 100 mph looks like.
So I offered FPS speed measuring of a small clip of my serves. Wasnt good enough.

Then it was...

-That power is useless unless it goes in most of the time.
Which I agreed to, but already explained im building a solid second serve before I work on the hard flat one.

Then it was...

-110 outwide because I made a comment about how I dont doubt that on a good strike it can be 110.
They forgot all about the "stipulations"

And now its...

120 out wide, 70% of the time all the time or else its useless.

All I was trying to illustrate is we've come so far since...

"3.0's cant hit 100 mph"

Click to expand...

No, we are still at "3.0s can't hit 100 mph". You're still using yourself as the example and you are under rated.

Relatively few 3.5s are going to nip 100mph on a gun. Maybe 10% of 4.0s can would be my guess and about 1/2 at 4.5 do from my experience.

My point is that a 100 mph serve is a weapon that moves people up the ranks...because lower level players have minimal chance of successfully returning it.

No, we are still at "3.0s can't hit 100 mph". You're still using yourself as the example and you are under rated.

Relatively few 3.5s are going to nip 100mph on a gun. Maybe 10% of 4.0s can would be my guess and about 1/2 at 4.5 do from my experience.

My point is that a 100 mph serve is a weapon that moves people up the ranks...because lower level players have minimal chance of successfully returning it.

Click to expand...

If that's what you're saying, then I agree.

There are still people here who think I cant serve 100. Granted, I havnt exactly proven it, the fact that they're so sure I cant is becoming questionable because of the progression to the 120 mph out-wide on demand 70% of the time.

It started as "a 3.0 cant serve 100 mph" referring to me.

It is a fact that I am a 3.0, but if what you are saying is that "im out of level thats why I can possibly do it" then I wholly agree.

I read what you originally wrote. I bet you're editing this now because you read the article that I linked in my other post.

While it is entirely possible that I do indeed have the wrong "Cindy" I have very strong evidence to show some obvious "coincidences" if its not.

So... I hope you agree that I do have the right "Cindy" and her record isnt even close to 40% win rate. She's barely at 25% as a 4.0 and just got a "B" rating because she won playing 3.5 (as a 4.0). Her record over the last 5 years isnt at all "decent" and she has only one year (2010) where she even has a winning record (50% or higher).

Click to expand...

I deleted it because I decided perhaps Cindy didn't want all of this discussion of her personal life on a public forum. I know her name. I know where she lives. I think you have the wrong person. It's her personal life, and I am pretty uncomfortable discussing it in a public forum. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

-I never posted her name.
-She posted an article that has her name on it.
-I just read the article and tennislinked her name to see if she was even a "good 4.0".

I do agree that it was a bit uncomfortable to repost that article, even she herself claimed she had a record similar to what you claimed (40%-50%). According to tennislink, that is just not at all true unless you count 3.5 wins, or just 2010.

Click to expand...

You would make a terrible detective. Did you ever think about comparing location to the name?

NTRPolice- I never said a 3.0 couldn't serve 100. I've known a guy who was a 3.0 who did- he was 6 foot 3 and 270 pounds former D1 football player and could just crush it though the serve would go in about 15% of the time. Since you tried to get into a MPH penis size contest with a 4.0 woman who plays Seniors I'm going to assume that you are under 5'9". I just laughed when you said that you personally could serve 110 since you have absolutely no reason to believe that you can. You don't have a coach saying you serve 110. You don't have a video showing you can serve 110. Playing 3.0 you almost certainly haven't faced anyone serving 110 in a league match where you think that your serve is just as strong. You are flat guessing but are so sure of yourself and that makes it very easy to laugh at you. I think you are simply delusional about your own level as you have shown time after time.

I know you said that. I dont see that on your tennislink, however. According to your tennislink, in 2012, you have 1 "win" due to a default. All of the rest of your matches are losses...

When I look back a few years, you're only winning as a "3.5".

I am not seeing you playing "4.0" and winning.

I just assume then, you're talking about "wins" outside of USTA. If you think those count, fine. Your record according to tennislink as a 4.0 is mostly losses. lol.

Click to expand...

You are looking at someone else's Tennislink record, clearly. If you see a default win for 2012, you aren't looking at my record.

And no, I don't count non-USTA wins. Indeed, I play very little tennis outside of USTA matches. And yes, I had some wins at 4.0 when I was a 3.5, but not very many.

You are correct, however, that my 2012 USTA record is "mostly losses." Winning 45% of matches is mostly losses, so no argument there.

That said, I am working diligently to get a winning record for 2013. The path, I think, is the ability to take the net against anyone and everyone. I could manipulate things by using my Captain Powers to play only with the strongest partners, but that would be taking shortcuts.

[edit: OK, I see you finally admitting you were wrong. It's kind of weird that you would try to call me out as a liar the way you did. Shoot first, aim later. I accept your apology.

Anyway, I don't see how my USTA win rate is very relevant here, but it does give us one useful bit of information: I know **way** more about how 3.5 and 4.0 women play in combo, mixed and adult than you do. Maybe you should listen.]

You are looking at someone else's Tennislink record, clearly. If you see a default win for 2012, you aren't looking at my record.

And no, I don't count non-USTA wins. Indeed, I play very little tennis outside of USTA matches. And yes, I had some wins at 4.0 when I was a 3.5, but not very many.

You are correct, however, that my 2012 USTA record is "mostly losses." Winning 45% of matches is mostly losses, so no argument there.

That said, I am working diligently to get a winning record for 2013. The path, I think, is the ability to take the net against anyone and everyone. I could manipulate things by using my Captain Powers to play only with the strongest partners, but that would be taking shortcuts.

Click to expand...

And I apologize.

I have deleted my previous entries with the article since my only reason for posting that was to show how I got the name I used to search tennislink and nothing more. Since I was wrong, there is no reason to leave that article floating out there. I also didnt want to post your name so that you could always remove that article if you wish.

Again, I apologize.

I had the wrong Cindy. I was just too convinced by the 2011 "B" rating, being a 4.0, the name, and being on the east to check it twice.

NTRPolice, I have noticed a theme in your posts (well, a lot of them, actually). The theme I noticed is "I'm a legit 3.0C, but I really have the strokes of a 3.5 or a 4.0."

I have a TT cautionary tale for you.

A few years ago, we had a poster whose name I won't reveal. Nice guy, for sure. He played a season of 3.0S and wasn't bumped up. Then he worked on his game and demolished the field at 3.0 as a 3.0C. This included a run to nationals and a national title, IIRC. He felt it was a reasonable goal to get to 4.5.

He got a double-bump to 4.0. The last I heard was that he was struggling to win games at 4.0, let alone matches. I think he became overwhelmed with job and family and isn't playing USTA these days. Before he left TT, he was very candid about how wrong he had been about ascending to 4.5 and how his strokes weren't achieving much at 4.0.

I hope when (not if, when) this happens to you that you will come back here and commiserate. You won't be the first to dominate at a low level only to find the going quite difficult once the NTRP computer catches up to you.

I have deleted my previous entries with the article since my only reason for posting that was to show how I got the name I used to search tennislink and nothing more. Since I was wrong, there is no reason to leave that article floating out there. I also didnt want to post your name so that you could always remove that article if you wish.

Again, I apologize.

I had the wrong Cindy. I was just too convinced by the 2011 "B" rating, being a 4.0, the name, and being on the east to check it twice.

Click to expand...

Apology accepted.

I do have to laugh. The lady you searched (thinking she was me) really has struggled, hasn't she?

Ooooo now I have to serve 120 out wide. That I dont know if I can do. Maybe on the Ad side.

I love how this started out with 110. Then it became 110 out wide. Then it became "all the time". Then it became 120 out wide.

I remember a point where I said I could serve 100+ and everyone was a doubter. After I posted my "bad" serve video its evolved to 120 out wide all the time.

Click to expand...

NTRPolice from 8/16/2012 said:

If my serve happened to be going extremely well, we may have been able to win. By well I mean 110-120 on demand out-wides and zero doubles serving 75-80 minimum.

My serve is probably the strongest part of my game... but its also the weakest part at the same time. It's the "main gun" as I call it. If the main gun is dialed in, it's easy sailing. If the main gun is down... well... haha.

There are still people here who think I cant serve 100. Granted, I havnt exactly proven it, the fact that they're so sure I cant is becoming questionable because of the progression to the 120 mph out-wide on demand 70% of the time.

It started as "a 3.0 cant serve 100 mph" referring to me.

It is a fact that I am a 3.0, but if what you are saying is that "im out of level thats why I can possibly do it" then I wholly agree.

Click to expand...

1. YOU were the first to claim this "120 out wide on demand" stuff
2. 3.0s don't serve 100 mph
3. From vids, you have a nice serve but it isn't near 100
4. Go clock yourself and get cred.

NTRPolice, I have noticed a theme in your posts (well, a lot of them, actually). The theme I noticed is "I'm a legit 3.0C, but I really have the strokes of a 3.5 or a 4.0."

I have a TT cautionary tale for you.

A few years ago, we had a poster whose name I won't reveal. Nice guy, for sure. He played a season of 3.0S and wasn't bumped up. Then he worked on his game and demolished the field at 3.0 as a 3.0C. This included a run to nationals and a national title, IIRC. He felt it was a reasonable goal to get to 4.5.

He got a double-bump to 4.0. The last I heard was that he was struggling to win games at 4.0, let alone matches. I think he became overwhelmed with job and family and isn't playing USTA these days. Before he left TT, he was very candid about how wrong he had been about ascending to 4.5 and how his strokes weren't achieving much at 4.0.

I hope when (not if, when) this happens to you that you will come back here and commiserate. You won't be the first to dominate at a low level only to find the going quite difficult once the NTRP computer catches up to you.

Click to expand...

Hey Cindy, don't know if you've wasted the 10 minutes of your life that you'll never get back like I did, but this kid has videos on YouTube. He's one of those former high school athletes that is picking up the game in his early-mid 20's. the type that is athletic and coordinated enough to rally with average 4.0 guys.

I would bet this kid will get bumped in December to 3.5 and be OK. He'll run into the backboards and junkballers there and have a few frustrating defeats, but for the most part he will win out of pure athleticism. Just like he did at 3.0, which he probably never belonged at.

4.0 will be another bag for him, as there will be plenty of folks there that are as athletic and technically sound. He won't fly through that level, but he'd have to be a total mental midget to get smoked. He likely will come to rest there for a while unless he plays up and gets some fluke wins.

4.5 is the level where I think he'd get it handed to him. Most guys at 4.5 have 20+ years on the court in one way or the other. I'm the type that played juniors and quit at 17 and then picked it up again 10 years ago in my late 20's. others picked it up after college and are now 40+. That level of experience is what will be the toughest to overcome for Police.

I do have to laugh. The lady you searched (thinking she was me) really has struggled, hasn't she?

Click to expand...

And her "experience" is extremely suspect. You can see why I laughed at "you" for supposedly having all this experience when "you" played 2 weekday leagues in a year.

When I got the right Cindy I can see you actually have a lot of experience. I play the maximum amount of leagues I can in a year and its quite possible you may actually play more. I play 6 USTA leagues a year, one year round doubles league and one other non-USTA league and you have to be about there as well. A far cry from two or three casual weekday leagues in a calender year.

1. YOU were the first to claim this "120 out wide on demand" stuff
2. 3.0s don't serve 100 mph
3. From vids, you have a nice serve but it isn't near 100
4. Go clock yourself and get cred.

Click to expand...

110-120 out wide on demand when im serving exceptionally well. It did start with "no 3.0 can serve 100" and you're missing a lot of the things said in between. I dont use it all the time for many reasons, reasons which you didnt list.

I'm a bit over the whole serve speed stuff because its clear no matter what I produce you guys will still have some angle to play to discredit it. I'm fine with that. The reason for my Youtube channel has never been to prove claims on TT.

-You guys have not seen my big serve head on, only the second serve i've been working on.
-Even if I do "clock" it using the FPS method, I still wasnt given "80" on my second serve. There were people claiming that serve was going 65 mph, remember? By that reasoning ill have to serve 135+ before you guys nitpick something else.

Hey Cindy, don't know if you've wasted the 10 minutes of your life that you'll never get back like I did, but this kid has videos on YouTube. He's one of those former high school athletes that is picking up the game in his early-mid 20's. the type that is athletic and coordinated enough to rally with average 4.0 guys.

I would bet this kid will get bumped in December to 3.5 and be OK. He'll run into the backboards and junkballers there and have a few frustrating defeats, but for the most part he will win out of pure athleticism. Just like he did at 3.0, which he probably never belonged at.

4.0 will be another bag for him, as there will be plenty of folks there that are as athletic and technically sound. He won't fly through that level, but he'd have to be a total mental midget to get smoked. He likely will come to rest there for a while unless he plays up and gets some fluke wins.

4.5 is the level where I think he'd get it handed to him. Most guys at 4.5 have 20+ years on the court in one way or the other. I'm the type that played juniors and quit at 17 and then picked it up again 10 years ago in my late 20's. others picked it up after college and are now 40+. That level of experience is what will be the toughest to overcome for Police.

Click to expand...

I never played high school sports. I messed around with tennis but never took it seriously. I decided to randomly play a non-USTA league in 2010 and later joined USTA.

It's easy to say that someone will fail at 4.5 since most people will. I am very well aware that blowing through 3.0 and 3.5 will be much easier than getting though 4.0 and moving on to 4.5. What's your point? In my "tennis plan" I gave myself 3 years to move up from 3.0 to 4.0 and 5 years to move up from 4.0 to 4.5.

"Wasted your 10 mins of your life" lol.

You say that and you call me a "kid". lol. What is this? Halo? or Call of Duty?

And ive worked very hard to get this good in this amount of time. If you think im going to "play up" just to get "fluke wins" so I can be a 4.5 "C" you're an idiot. I didnt work his hard to (basically) self-rate up just to say im a 4.5. If I hit my goal ill hit 4.5 by the time im 35 which gives me 5 solid years to grind out 4.0 the right way. If I was all about "rating flexing" I could have just self-rated 4.0 from the start.

I'm a 4.5C. If I pop a ball up in a 4.5 match, I'm pretty sure someone is going to put it away against me (and vice versa).

I actually think that is the difference between 4.0-4.5. Short balls to a 4.5 are going to be played more accurately and aggressively than at 4.0. Depth with spin is very important.

Click to expand...

Saying that when you pop a ball up you expect that someone is going to put it away is a VERY long way from saying that you haven't ever played with a 4.5 player who struggled putting balls away. You know your teammates abilities- you seriously don't know any players who struggle at the net at 4.5?

NTRPolice;6920175
I never played high school sports. I messed around with tennis but never took it seriously. I decided to randomly play a non-USTA league in 2010 and later joined USTA.
It's easy to say that someone will fail at 4.5 since most people will. I am very well aware that blowing through 3.0 and 3.5 will be much easier than getting though 4.0 and moving on to 4.5. What's your point? In my "tennis plan" I gave myself 3 years to move up from 3.0 to 4.0 and 5 years to move up from 4.0 to 4.5.
"Wasted your 10 mins of your life" lol.
You say that and you call me a "kid". lol. What is this? Halo? or Call of Duty?
And ive worked very hard to get this good in this amount of time. If you think im going to "play up" just to get "fluke wins" so I can be a 4.5 "C" you're an idiot. I didnt work his hard to (basically) self-rate up just to say im a 4.5. If I hit my goal ill hit 4.5 by the time im 35 which gives me 5 solid years to grind out 4.0 the right way. If I was all about "rating flexing" I could have just self-rated 4.0 from the start.[/QUOTE said:

I actually didn't say you played hs sports, but that you were a hs athlete. I'm assuming you weren't picked last in gym class.

I didn't say you'd fail at 4.5. That is where I think you'll get to (Cindy thought 4.0 was your ceiling). You'll struggle at 4.5, but you'll get there. Like I said, it's an experience thing. By the time you log your 20+ years on the court, your body will be on the down side physically.

I've probably wasted far more than 10 mins of my life. On top of watching the videos, I'm sitting here analyzing you on my lunch break.

And yea, you're a kid to me. Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I am nearly old enough to be your father so I put you in the kid category. We refer to all the recent college grads as kids.

I understand that you don't want to play up as a way to accomplish a long term goal. I didn't want to either when I was a solid 4.0. But I got baited into it by a friend that was short on players for a 4.5 team. Then, I got a couple wins and received the bump. Dreaded it at the time, but I've been competitive enough.

In a nutshell, I'm being complimentary of you. I think that you probably should have self rated at 3.5 originally. 3.0 is just below you physically.

Probably the only non compliment I have is your serve. It might touch 100 on a hot day, but it ain't got 120 within sight. No way, no how. Your natural arm swing just doesn't get that much racket head speed. 120 is a really, really big ball that I don't know if I've faced in 20+ years. Only time I've seen it live is at UF men's matches and during tour events.

I'm not saying this to insult you. I think your serve is very good for how much experience you have, the age at which you started playing, and your level.

But, sorry, you don't have the technique it takes to generate that kind of pace. Maybe you will develop that technique, but it's not there yet. I say that based on the videos you posted. Your service motion is still not smooth and developed enough. Your knee bend and shoulder rotation are mistimed.

Saying that when you pop a ball up you expect that someone is going to put it away is a VERY long way from saying that you haven't ever played with a 4.5 player who struggled putting balls away. You know your teammates abilities- you seriously don't know any players who struggle at the net at 4.5?

Click to expand...

What other balls get put away? Even the Bryan's don't put away balls that are rocketed into their body. It can take them 4 or 5 volleys to get the sitter they are waiting for.

Sure, there are 4.5's that aren't good net players (me). But, the balls that should get put away get put away. If they don't, the match would be very lopsided.

I actually didn't say you played hs sports, but that you were a hs athlete. I'm assuming you weren't picked last in gym class.

I didn't say you'd fail at 4.5. That is where I think you'll get to (Cindy thought 4.0 was your ceiling). You'll struggle at 4.5, but you'll get there. Like I said, it's an experience thing. By the time you log your 20+ years on the court, your body will be on the down side physically.

I've probably wasted far more than 10 mins of my life. On top of watching the videos, I'm sitting here analyzing you on my lunch break.

And yea, you're a kid to me. Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I am nearly old enough to be your father so I put you in the kid category. We refer to all the recent college grads as kids.

I understand that you don't want to play up as a way to accomplish a long term goal. I didn't want to either when I was a solid 4.0. But I got baited into it by a friend that was short on players for a 4.5 team. Then, I got a couple wins and received the bump. Dreaded it at the time, but I've been competitive enough.

In a nutshell, I'm being complimentary of you. I think that you probably should have self rated at 3.5 originally. 3.0 is just below you physically.

Click to expand...

To some extent I was "the last to be picked in gym class" but thats only because I never bothered to advertise my athletic abilities the same way athletic people do. I've always thought high school sports were ridiculous, its politics for teenagers and it will get you no where in life. (for the record: I no longer believe this, but I did when I was in high school. I can see some value in high school sports now.)

The last "organized" sport I played was soccer when I was like 10 years old. I did play some other sports between then, but those were related to other activities like church or whatever.

In high school I was playing with chess pieces, computers and musical instruments more than I was anything else.

And, if you must know, I never graduated high school (got my GED 2 years later "just in case") and I most certainly didnt go to college. Very few people even know that I didnt actually graduate high school. I dropped out of high school to pursue other things. These other things have allowed me a lot of free time post 25 years old, which is why I spend a lot of time doing charity work and... recently, playing a lot of tennis. I'm not going to say im retired, but I certainly and not bound by a 9 to 5 schedule.

Probably the only non compliment I have is your serve. It might touch 100 on a hot day, but it ain't got 120 within sight. No way, no how. Your natural arm swing just doesn't get that much racket head speed. 120 is a really, really big ball that I don't know if I've faced in 20+ years. Only time I've seen it live is at UF men's matches and during tour events.

I'm not saying this to insult you. I think your serve is very good for how much experience you have, the age at which you started playing, and your level.

But, sorry, you don't have the technique it takes to generate that kind of pace. Maybe you will develop that technique, but it's not there yet. I say that based on the videos you posted. Your service motion is still not smooth and developed enough. Your knee bend and shoulder rotation are mistimed.

Click to expand...

That video is from a transition from my old, raw, powerful but unreliable serve motion. The reason why my timing is so off is because im transitioning from a very boxy and deliberate motion to a more fluid open one.

That video was never intended at its creation to showcase serve speed. That video at its creation was just intended to show me what I look like in the new form. I learn a lot by watching myself do things.

I merely offered that video to TT to show what I have. If I was as concerned to proving myself on the internet than learning I would just make a video of my using my old motion and ripping serves down the T.

My old serve motion requires incredible leg endurance for it to work which I cannot maintain over multiple sets. A solution was needed. The serve video you're watching is me in between the old and the new. You can see me explaining to my teacher about using the pinpoint stance. You also have to consider that this video was made on our first or second lesson, not nearly enough time to get the fluidity of motion properly timed.

What other balls get put away? Even the Bryan's don't put away balls that are rocketed into their body. It can take them 4 or 5 volleys to get the sitter they are waiting for.

Sure, there are 4.5's that aren't good net players (me). But, the balls that should get put away get put away. If they don't, the match would be very lopsided.

Click to expand...

Yep. That is exactly what we were talking about before we went off topic. We went from "put away balls" to "5.0 singles players instantly putting away 70 mph serve returns that are an inch from their big toe 100% of the time."

"A floater is a put-away at any level" is probably a better choice of words.

110-120 out wide on demand when im serving exceptionally well. It did start with "no 3.0 can serve 100" and you're missing a lot of the things said in between. I dont use it all the time for many reasons, reasons which you didnt list.

I'm a bit over the whole serve speed stuff because its clear no matter what I produce you guys will still have some angle to play to discredit it. I'm fine with that. The reason for my Youtube channel has never been to prove claims on TT.

-You guys have not seen my big serve head on, only the second serve i've been working on.
-Even if I do "clock" it using the FPS method, I still wasnt given "80" on my second serve. There were people claiming that serve was going 65 mph, remember? By that reasoning ill have to serve 135+ before you guys nitpick something else.

Click to expand...

The FPS method is apples to oranges and is flawed; not the least of which is the wild assumption that since a Sampras serve decelerates from 135 at racket impact to 85 at bounce (a drop in speed assumption that I seriously question) that everyone's speed drops by 40 mph. Regardless, it isn't the standard. It's as if you put mini gps sensors in a ball and posted speeds; there is nothing to relate it to save personal improvement.

A radar gun is very accurate and is no way shape or form a camera. Go clock yourself and post results. If you're hitting 120 mph out wide on demand I will be the first to say how awesome a serve you have.... for virtually any level of play. Until then it ain't happening. No way; no how.

To some extent I was "the last to be picked in gym class" but thats only because I never bothered to advertise my athletic abilities the same way athletic people do. I've always thought high school sports were ridiculous, its politics for teenagers and it will get you no where in life. (for the record: I no longer believe this, but I did when I was in high school. I can see some value in high school sports now.)

The last "organized" sport I played was soccer when I was like 10 years old. I did play some other sports between then, but those were related to other activities like church or whatever.

In high school I was playing with chess pieces, computers and musical instruments more than I was anything else.

And, if you must know, I never graduated high school (got my GED 2 years later "just in case") and I most certainly didnt go to college. Very few people even know that I didnt actually graduate high school. I dropped out of high school to pursue other things. These other things have allowed me a lot of free time post 25 years old, which is why I spend a lot of time doing charity work and... recently, playing a lot of tennis. I'm not going to say im retired, but I certainly and not bound by a 9 to 5 schedule.

That video is from a transition from my old, raw, powerful but unreliable serve motion. The reason why my timing is so off is because im transitioning from a very boxy and deliberate motion to a more fluid open one.

That video was never intended at its creation to showcase serve speed. That video at its creation was just intended to show me what I look like in the new form. I learn a lot by watching myself do things.

I merely offered that video to TT to show what I have. If I was as concerned to proving myself on the internet than learning I would just make a video of my using my old motion and ripping serves down the T.

My old serve motion requires incredible leg endurance for it to work which I cannot maintain over multiple sets. A solution was needed. The serve video you're watching is me in between the old and the new. You can see me explaining to my teacher about using the pinpoint stance. You also have to consider that this video was made on our first or second lesson, not nearly enough time to get the fluidity of motion properly timed.

Yep. That is exactly what we were talking about before we went off topic. We went from "put away balls" to "5.0 singles players instantly putting away 70 mph serve returns that are an inch from their big toe 100% of the time."

"A floater is a put-away at any level" is probably a better choice of words.